Since January of 2008, this nationally recognized blog has been dedicated to following the very latest news regarding presidential pardons and the pardon power (or clemency powers) as exercised in each state. Reader comments are certainly welcomed but a premium will be placed on civility, relevance and originality. Please refrain from extended copying and pasting.

TERMS TO KNOW

AMNESTY - A general or group pardon that is usually granted before conviction. This power is most commonly associated with post-war clemency, for draft evasion, sedition or other violations of selective service laws. Amnesties may or may not be conditional

CLEMENCY - At the federal level, this is a broad term which is interpreted to include all of the other terms defined in this section. Sometimes, "clemency" is described as "the pardon power," which is acceptable, so long as it is understood that, formally speaking, a pardon is one of several forms of clemency. Clemency powers can be found in all three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial). At the state level, "clemency" is sometimes meant to be synonymous with "commutation." Thus "clemency" is used to release indivduals from prison. "Pardons" in such states are used to restore the civil rights of those who have already served their time.

COMMUTATION - A reduction in the severity of a punishment that is commonly confused with a pardon. Commutations reduce the length of a sentence or the amount of a fine. Perhaps the most high-profile commutations are those that change a death sentence to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Commutations can be controversial if the "reduction" is, arguably, not a reduction. Imagine a 2-year sentence being commuted to a $900,000 fine. Is that really a reduction in the severity of the punishment? Commutations can have conditions attached. Supreme Court decisions appear to suggest that commutations of sentence cannot be refused. Although there was a time when commutations were granted more frequently than pardons, they are very rarely granted today.

EXPUNGEMENT - Each state is free to define expungement as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of expungement. See also "sealing" (below)

PARDON - The removal of all disability or punishment. Pardons may be granted before or after conviction. Today, they are usually granted in order to restore civil rights (the right to vote, hold public office, participate in a jury, own a firearm, etc.). Pardons can have conditions attached. There has been a steady decline in the granting of pardons since 1900 whether one looks at the raw number of pardons, the percentage of applications that result in pardons or the percentage of presidential clemency decisions which result in pardons. There has, however, been a more accelerated decline since the late 1960s.

REMISSION - Most often, remissions were devices used to remove fines and forfeitures. In some instances, however, the word remit was used to simply remove (as opposed to reducing) a portion of a sentence. Today, federal clemency statistics do not even count remissions as a separate category of clemency decisions.

REPRIEVE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Sometimes used as a synonym for "stay." See Respite, below.

RESPITE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Typically, respites are granted for a specific number of days (30 to 60) but they have often been followed by additional respites and have also been granted in an entirely open-ended fashion (as in, "We will get back to you, when we can."). Today, the word "reprieve" is more likely to be used for an act of clemency that delays punishment.

SEALING - Each state is free to define sealing as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of sealing. See also "expungement" (above).

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

[Criticism of the pardon power] has occurred sporadically and has pointed to the necessity for greater circumspection by the pardoning authority rather than to the need for restriction of presidential action or for modification of the pardoning process. Recommendations on applications for clemency of United States Judges and Attorneys should not be relied upon to as great an extent in the future as in the past in deciding what should be done with applications for clemency. [There] are reasons demanding that recommendations from these official should be scrutinized very carefully.

Because of the nature of the information which a judge received on a case, because of the danger of partiality which the experiences of a judge in criminal cases engender, and because of insufficient time to collect facts relevant to a decision in clemency cases, the United States Judge's recommendations should be critically examined. The judges imposed the sentence and they are loathe to admit any error in their original sentence.

[This] last objection applies with equal force to the practice of relying upon the recommendation of the United States Attorneys . The United States Attorneys who frequently reach their offices because of political preferment, are often fired with a zeal to make a record by numerous convictions in order to secure further promotion. Their ardor may bring out a great number of convictions, some of which are unwarranted. But will these men be wiling, afterwards, to recommend clemency in the cases in which over-zealousness brought about a wrongful conviction or too severe a sentence?

[More] security to both the pardoning authority and the applicants for clemency and better results in the use of the pardoning power would probably be produced by creating a small board, equipped with a staff to make impartial studies of detailed data on each applicant for clemency, including the data submitted by the United States Attorneys and Judges, a board clothed with the present authority of the pardon attorney to make recommendations on applications for clemency to the Attorney General and the President. [Such] a process would definitely fix responsibility for action, promote greater uniformity of treatment, and obviate the necessity for relying to as great extent as at present upon recommendations from the United States Judges and Attorneys and from other officials.

Better use of the pardoning power, not abandonment of it, should be sought. The errors which occur in the administration of justice provide a sufficient reason for retention of the pardoning power in the government of the United States. There comes, moreover, a time during the incarceration of the more intelligent prisoners when clemency to them, in the proper form, will be productive of a more good both to them and to society than would ensure from insistence upon strict observance of the sentences. [By] granting clemency at the proper juncture, a social attitude may be created and the development of a vindictive spirit on the part of the convict may be avoided. Something may be lost thereby in the way of certainty of execution of sentence but compensation may be looked for through the restoration of the convict as a useful member of society. - W.H. Humbert (1941)